It’s so interesting how eight years changes the meaning of the word “mandate.” In 2004, George W. Bush won the election by 3,012,166 popular votes (a 2.4% margin over Kerry) and 286 Electoral Votes (a 31 Electoral Vote margin over Kerry’s). Bush said:
“I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.” source
Here’s how Vice President Cheney put it:
“President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation’s future and the nation responded by giving him a mandate.” source
And the media parroted this term “mandate” endlessly. So much so that when Barbara Boxer gave her victory speech that same year, she noted that with her near 60% win, she had been given a real mandate.
Barack Obama won the 2012 election with 3,227,862 popular votes (a 2.7% margin over Romney) and 332 Electoral Votes (a 126 Electoral Vote margin over Romney). And yet the media was a flurry the next day over how Obama and his team should not take this as a mandate. My dad, no doubt echoing FAUX News, said to me that it was no mandate. I dropped the numbers above on him. Then I said, Obama isn’t even claiming a mandate. Obama’s own victory speech was about coming together to solve problems:
I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America. source
I’m not claiming Obama’s win was a mandate. I just find it amusing how the Republicans and the media to whom they distribute talking points, so easily changed the definition of “mandate” eight years later. Especially when the margin of victory in 2012 was larger than it was in 2004.
© logan for Loganotron, 2012. |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags:
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh